Yes, everything is fake. The people were fake, the witnesses were fake, the victims were fake, the buildings were fake, etc. Maybe New York City is
fake and doesn't really exist?

You should stop insulting peoples' intelligence. Nobody is buying this "it's all fake" disinformation.

Furthermore, one thing no-planers like to do is show images or videos with horrible quality, or tiny unrecognizable images, then want to call it
"proof".

Let's look at some proof:

The plane on top is a United Airlines 767 just before it hit the south tower. The plane on bottom is a United Airlines 767 on take-off. Both have the
same colors, same shape, same logo on the rear stabilizer.

Sorry, not even in the same universe as a JASSM, or any other missile for that matter.

The above plane is a United Airlines 767 just before it hit the south tower. The bottom is a United Airlines 767 on take-off. Both have the same
colors, same shape, same logo on the rear stabilizer.

You Dont think they could George Lucas a few airplanes?
The two pictures you posted look very similar yes, but its not proof. You didnt take that picture.
What are the chances of catching a non-blurry Boeing 767 jet about to crash into a building on camera?

Look how fast its going. Cmon now.....your a human. Dont fall for this crap.

Lol very good. This is the next logical step for truthers. Fake planes crashing into fake towers in a fake NY.

Come to think about it, I've only ever seen a small part of new york city in person. It could have been a stage set populated with actors so that
four years later I would believe it was a real place when it was attacked.

The guy has Ron Paul in his signature. Anyone who falls for Ron Paul's act is not someone i deem intelligent.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

I cannot believe the people aboard these planes were fabrications. It's absurd. Even the most simplistic forms of research would reveal if the
government made up the crew and passengers.

They've got you exactly where they want you.

""The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not
come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst." - J. Edgar Hoover

Occam's razor.

When you have to defend your arguments by quoting someone famous, says lots about the caliber of said arguments.

Why not answer my question with a simple and logical reply without resorting to misdirection.

Easy as that. If the whole thing is already a lie, why believe in REAL passengers and REAL planes? The TV may not be as honest as you think.

Ever seen Star Wars? This ending scene was created in 1977.
Now compare that to the footage we saw on 9/11. Special effects cant happen 24 years later? How many angles were released to the public from
Media/Amateur camera's? Can we trust them?

Look at it this way.............it's WAY easier to accept the original story CNN is passing out. Might as well believe that one.....right?

Are you seriously arguing that these planes and people never existed? That the entire event was special effects?

Why do it that way? If the government is behind this, why would they bother with faking planes with holographic images and populating said planes
with make-believe people? What's the motive?

"I have an idea. Let's hire George Lucas and a bunch of computer imaging experts. We'll get them to create holographic images of planes. While we get
that set up, let's go ahead and build fake histories for the fake passengers. That way no Americans get hurt when this goes down."

Ludicrous argument. If the government wanted the attacks to galvanize the nation into war, they would have WANTED casualties.

Not saying that is all true, but if it was an inside job then I'm sure they would have covered all the bases, no?

edit on 3/29/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

I've seen the pilots for truth website and they do raise interesting questions. Same with the issues about the pentagon.

As for new identities. These passengers and crew left behind spouses, children, friends, family. I find it hard to believe they would willingly
abandon their loved ones.

So the government killed the people elsewhere. Why? If their goal was to demolish that particular section of the pentagon, why not use the plane?
Lot simpler than faking people's death, and it takes care of them without having to dispose of them elsewhere.

It takes more elaborate scheming to fake a plane crash and convince the world the plane crashed. Far easier just to fly the plane into the Prentagon.

What an ignorant Ron Paul rant to throw in there. What about building 7 ? blew up on its own ? no plane in any pentagon video....somethings
wrong....bye the way NEVER TRUST AN OBAMA supporter,,they support genetically modified foods and pink slime.

They were all planes and none were shot down. Do not believe what you cant see. Even if you could slow it down you wont see what you want to. Cameras
werent very good back then. I no things alot of you want to. I cant say much more. But everyone posting on this website is being watched. Please for
your sake limit what you think you know. Thank you for you time.
ITANIMULLI

When you have to defend your arguments by quoting someone famous, says lots about the caliber of said arguments.

Why not answer my question with a simple and logical reply without resorting to misdirection.

? There is a lot i said besides that quote. You chose to only read the quote. Its a good one by the way.

Where did the planes go? There was no plane. No plane hit anything. You fell for it, not me. Review all the impact footage and ask yourself if they
could fake it. Watch the 1977 Star Wars clip i posted. You dont think they could create a plane crash? They did great with the moon landing

-Missile hits WTC/Pentagon/Shanksville.

-Create 20 + helicopter/amateur angles that include a Boeing and release to the public. Pretty easy. Much easier than 19 hi-jackers with box cutters.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Well, gee whiz, glad to know that you know everything about what happened, and what is a hoax and what isn't.

Some of us have been researching 9/11 for many years. Even years before signing up to ATS. The no-plane "theory" was proven to be disinformation and a
deliberately-created hoax years ago. And is one of the main reasons that the no-planer threads are in the HOAX bin on this site and most others.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
You trying to shoot this thread down will not be as successful.

Shooting the no-planer threads down has been a resounding success for many years now. (Hence the no-planer threads being moved to the HOAX bin.)

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
This is my right as an American citizen and a thinking human being.

You are correct. It is your right as a human being to believe in whatever you want. That includes believing in known deliberate hoaxes. However, I
wouldn't classify someone who believes in known deliberate hoaxes to be a "thinking" human being. Quite the total opposite, actually.

Some of us have been studying 9/11 for years mate, ever since seeing it live on T.V. to be exact. You really get my goat pal, if the no-plane theory
was a deliberate hoax it would go away, it hasn't gone away and it WON'T go away until the lying government produces more evidence of what truly
happened, particularly at the Pentagon. Deliberate hoax my right cheek.

I'm not saying planes didn't hit the towers, they most likely did, but they are not the sole reason they collapsed imo.

The U.S. government are liars, but they are also incompetant, that incompetance seemed to multiply ten fold on 9/11. If they weren't directly
responsible in the events on that day, then they certainly played a huge part indirectly for letting it happen.

Right, but then, of course they'd have to silence all the witnesses who saw the events unfold, paying off or killing thousands of people. Then they'd
have to confiscate every single piece of film that was shot of the actual events.

Then they'd have to ensure the silence of all the people involved in the cover-up, not to mention the production of fake news footage.

At some point, you have to realize that the purpose of a conspiracy theory is to provide a better, more credible explanation of events than is
otherwise available. Central to the conspiracy mindset, is that the events transpiring must be a means to some end for some group or person indeed it
needs to somehow be a better way than other means available to the group. Otherwise, why do it. Media Fakery/ NoPlanes fails this crucial test. It

Media Fakery/ No Planism amounts to a Rube Goldberg contraption that is defeated by its own complexity and ad-hoc nature

Originally posted by holywar666
Ever seen Star Wars? This ending scene was created in 1977.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Did TPTB secretly kill them and hide the bodies?

Unfortunately,i think thats true.The passengers got onboard real airplanes,that were diverted away mid-flight and landed at a secret location
and then the passengers were eliminated.A small price to pay,from tptb's perspectives,in order to get their war machine rolling and their industrial
megabucks flowing,again.Just like when tptb forcibly prodded the japanese,by cutting off their countries access to oil and then allowing them to
attack pearl harbor...

Unfortunately,i think thats true.The passengers got onboard real airplanes,that were diverted away mid-flight and landed at a secret location and then
the passengers were eliminated.A small price to pay,from tptb's perspectives,in order to get their war machine rolling and their industrial megabucks
flowing,again.

To do this you have to add to the number of people involved in the conspiracy.
This increases the odds of something going wrong.

Where did I hear "Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.".
And yet no one has talked.
No death bed confessions.
No posthumas tell all books.
No paper trail of payoff money. How much would it take to keep silent?

Whenever I hear talk of diverting the planes I think of 'plane spotters'. Look it up. You can't hide planes, people are watching.

When you have to defend your arguments by quoting someone famous, says lots about the caliber of said arguments.

Why not answer my question with a simple and logical reply without resorting to misdirection.

? There is a lot i said besides that quote. You chose to only read the quote. Its a good one by the way.

Where did the planes go? There was no plane. No plane hit anything. You fell for it, not me. Review all the impact footage and ask yourself if they
could fake it. Watch the 1977 Star Wars clip i posted. You dont think they could create a plane crash? They did great with the moon landing

-Missile hits WTC/Pentagon/Shanksville.

-Create 20 + helicopter/amateur angles that include a Boeing and release to the public. Pretty easy. Much easier than 19 hi-jackers with box cutters.

You're right. The quote is nice. It just has nothing to do with your argument.

One more time.

You contend that :

a.) there were no planes and no passengers.
For this to be true, then a huge amount of people were deliberately lying. What about the relatives of those who died? The crew members who
reported to work that morning? These people left behind evidence of their existence. What proof do you have that there were no planes?

b.) Instead of planes, the government (or whomever) used special effects to fool everyone.
How? You continually refer to the ending of Star Wars. A great movie, by the way. But it has no bearing on your premise. There is a HUGE
difference between the special effects in a movie and those used in a real-life situation. To achieve a special effect in a movie is a pretty
sophisticated arrangement. Multiple "runs" of the scene, editing the various stills, using computer enhancements to add to the scene. Now consider
your argument that this whole thing was pulled off with special effects. The two don't connect.

I'm sure you'll reply with another snazzy reference to Star Wars or some other movie. Perhaps you'll add another quote to bolster your argument.
Or perhaps you'll simply claim I "fell for it" again and move on.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.